• deweydecibel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Should note this is not permanent. It’s only for the extent of the spending bill, which is until October, and can be easily removed from the spending bills after the election, when hopefully we have a more blue congress that won’t need to make these shitty concession just to fund the damn government.

        • Alsephina@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          NOTHING to do with Gaza and was about Ukraine

          Blue MAGA lmao

        • Alsephina@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          A shutdown of the government currently committing a genocide in Palestine? Hell yeah

          This is no excuse to fund genocide.

          • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            7 months ago

            You realize a shutdown wouldn’t impact weapons transfers or the execution of military strategy right?

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            7 months ago

            Just saying that there’s a reason why Democrats voted for it.

            Also a government shutdown has major impacts on their own country’s population and they are the people they need to worry about first and foremost.

            • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              You know it doesn’t have to be that way right? The government could be funded at a base level automatically just by a simple majority in the senate and the house. But the Democrats love the excuses so that idiots like you will support them anyway.

                • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  The federal budget is legally originated in the house of representative. The details of this budget can be literally anything. They can say that only agency’s that start with the letter A are funded, etc, it doesn’t matter. They could zero out the military budget if they wanted. They could pass universal healthcare if they want. It’s an appropriations bill of a sovereign nation, there aren’t any rules. This bill in whatever form, then goes to the Senate where again, it can be passed with a simple majority.

                  Yes the rules of the senate allow a filibuster to exist, but any bill can be filibuster proof with a simple majority of the senate. There is no constitution guarantee of the filibuster. The only reason the filibuster exists is because the rules of the senate (which only require a simple majority to change) allow it to exist.

                  Any funding bill can say, fiscal government spending will stay constant year over year, until a future funding bill changes it q.e.d.

                  • Maeve@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    Oh, I’m so sorry! I didn’t know what I was thinking when I read “simple majority,” please accept my apologies for making you do the extra work!

              • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                But it’s not how it works right now and they need to deal with the system as it is now until it doesn’t work this way anymore. Voting against it wouldn’t change the system in place.

                • Alsephina@lemmy.mlOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Should’ve voted no then. Would likely stop the genocide in a few weeks/months if the US government stops functioning and can’t maintain its colony in Palestine anymore. It would also give the working class an opportunity for revolution to establish a system that doesn’t require genocide to function.

                  But of course, liberal “democracies” and the two-party system just represent the interests of the capitalist class. Just wish liberals and conservatives would acknowledge that and stop defending the two parties, and spend that time and effort organizing against it.

                  • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    6
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    7 months ago

                    Welcome to the real world buddy, I swear this place is filled with 15 years old revolutionaries 😂

                • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Simple majority can change it, and historically there have been plenty of options for democrats to do such a thing, but they never seem to want to put provisions in place to help people for some reasons.